Tuesday, June 16, 2015

The Discovery Institute's myths and misconceptions about evolution

If students are going to learn critical thinking about evolution, they need to be exposed to controversial views and challenges concerning evolution, the history of life, and evolutionary theory. The Discovery Institute agrees with this strategy. It has published a handbook called The Educator's Briefing Packet that claims to outline what teachers should cover when they teach evolution.

As you might imagine, the Discovery Institute concentrates on showing that evolution is wrong rather than focusing on whether Intelligent Design Creationism is correct. That's partly because they don't want to advocate teaching Intelligent Design Creationism in schools.

They explain the strategy on page 7 ...
Teaching this subject objectively means presenting both the scientific evidence for and against neo-Darwinian evolution. This does not mean simply criticizing evolution or only presenting the case against the neo-Darwinian model. Rather, objective instruction means:
  • Fully teaching the evidence for neo-Darwinian evolution from the textbook.
  • Covering the entire required curriculum.
  • Helping students understand the scientific arguments in favor of neo-Darwinian evolution as well as the scientific criticisms as they are presented in the scientific literature.
This strategy implies that students are taught something called "Neo-Darwinism" in class. Here's how they define Neo-Darwinism.
Darwin argued that natural selection had the power to produce fundamentally new forms of life. Together, the ideas of universal common descent and natural selection form the core of Darwinian evolutionary theory. "Neo-Darwinian" evolution combines our knowledge of DNA and genetics to claim that mutations in DNA provide the variation upon which natural selection acts.
Right away we have a problem since many textbooks do not describe modern evolutionary theory in this manner. The handbook doesn't explain what teachers should do if they are teaching modern evolutionarytheory instead of Neo-Darwinism but I think it's pretty obvious what the Intelligent Design Creationists would recommend if they actually understood evolution. They would still recommend criticizing it.

In a real classroom run by competent teachers, the teachers would begin by pointing out that many creationist organizations have an incorrect and distorted view of evolution and they would pass out copies of the handbook. Then they would discuss why the Discovery Institute is promoting nonsense about evolution when they claim to be experts on the subject. The class could analyze the difference between the DI version of evolution that only covers natural selection and the modern view that includes random genetic drift and population genetics. This would be a highly effective way of teaching critical thinking and exposing students to one of the most common misconceptions about evolution.

In the right hands, this could lead to a discussion about why creationists seem to resist being educated about evolution even though the correct information is readily available on the internet. The class could learn about confirmation bias, begging the question, false dichotomy, and the strawman fallacy using examples from the handbook.

The Educator's Briefing Packet contains lots of other myths and misrepresentations that are commonly found in creationist literature. Debunking and correcting these examples can also be used to foster critical thinking and teach the truth about evolution. I'd like to thank the Discovery Institute for putting them all in one place. I'd love to spend a few days in a senior high school class showing the students why these are myths and/or misconceptions.

Here's the list1 ...
  • Genetics: Mutations Tend to Cause Harm and Do Not Build Complexity. Darwinian evolution relies on random mutations which are acted on by natural selection, a blind and unguided process that has no goals. Such a random and undirected process tends to harm organisms. They do not seem capable of improving organisms or building new complex systems.
  • Biochemistry: Unguided and Random Processes Cannot Produce Cellular Complexity.Cells contain incredible complexity, similar to machine technology but dwarfing anything produced by humans. Cells use circuits, miniature motors, feedback loops, encoded language, and even error-checking machinery which decodes and repairs our DNA. Many scientists have claimed that Darwinian evolution does not appear capable of building this type of integrated complexity.
  • Paleontology: The Fossil Record Lacks Intermediate Fossils. The fossil record’s overall pattern is one of abrupt explosions of new biological forms and possible candidates for evolutionary transitions are the exception, not the rule. For example, the Cambrian Explosion is an event in life’s history over 500 million years ago where nearly all the major body plans of animals appear in a geological instant without any apparent evolutionary precursors.
  • Taxonomy: Biologists Have Failed to Construct Darwin’s Tree of Life. Biologists hoped that DNA evidence would reveal a grand tree of life where all organisms are clearly related. Yet trees describing the alleged ancestral relationships between organisms based upon one gene or biological characteristic commonly conflict with trees based upon a different gene or characteristic. This implies a challenge to universal common descent, the hypothesis that all organisms share a single common ancestor.
  • Chemistry: The Chemical Origin of Life Remains an Unsolved Mystery. The mystery of the origin of life is unsolved, and all existing theories of chemical evolution face major problems. Basic deficiencies in chemical evolution include a lack of explanation for how a primordial soup could arise on the early earth’s hostile environment, or how the information required for life could be generated by blind chemical reactions.
In all theses cases we have situations where the Discovery Institute is challenging the views of the vast majority of scientists who have devoted careers to studying these issues. That's a good opportunity to teach students how they should go about deciding who to believe when faced with scientific questions. Should you believe doctors or movie actors when trying to decide whether to vaccinate your children? Should you believe climatologists or politicians about climate change? Should you believe evolutionary biologists or religious leaders when trying to decide if evolution is true?

However, I'm not sure if we could ever have much of a discussion about these issues because the latest "ID the Future" podcast features a discussion between Nate Herbst and Casy Luskin about students who question evolution in class. As it turns out, many of those students have bad experiences because they end up feeling stupid when they challenge science in class. Luskin and Herbst recommend that they hide their beliefs in order to avoid such embarrassment [see Listen: Good Advice for Students Learning about Evolution]. Maybe that's not always a good idea, however, because Herbst and Luskin also have some stories about how they stumped the professors and caused them to change their minds about evolution and origins.


1. I wonder who they used as an authority on evolution in order to make up these questions?

53 comments :

  1. Hmm. Pipetting without wearing safety glasses, eh? Not in my lab.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And no gloves or lab coat. Not in my lab either.

      Delete
    2. And the teacher handling a nearly full test-tube and a pipette 20 cm from a litle girl's eyes.

      Delete
    3. A LINGUIST can see what's wrong with this picture.

      No offense. Anyway, the pipette is full of red food coloring so she could take a shower in it with no ill effects.

      Here's a real lab story from my former place of employment. Undergrad works on prof's research project. After hours, when the lab is empty, she pipettes volatile chemicals... but not under a fume hood. Kablooie. Structure fire, building shut down, undergrad sent home to her parents in an envelope. Professor under arrest. Someone didn't train that girl correctly.

      Creationists think pipettes and lab coats are props, signifiers of authority. Like in the Canadian Parliament when the sergeant at arms marches in with that giant gold sceptre thing. That's what a pipette is to an ID proponent. Wave it in front of the audience. Respect mah authoritah.

      Considering how little practical experience the IDiots have got, we should be glad they limit themselves to red, blue, and green food coloring.

      Delete
    4. "Creationists think pipettes and lab coats are props, signifiers of authority. Like in the Canadian Parliament when the sergeant at arms marches in with that giant gold sceptre thing. That's what a pipette is to an ID proponent. Wave it in front of the audience. Respect mah authoritah."

      You forget your recent news. That same mace waiving, tri-corn hat wearing dear gent at arms recently put several bullets in a gunman who stormed the parliament buildings.

      I will never say that he looks like a sissy again.

      Delete
    5. I didn't forget that story. He John McClaned that terrorist.

      Delete
    6. The point it, there was more to Sergeant-at-Arms Vickers than a funny hat (a bicorne, by the way) and a mace.

      Delete
    7. Exactly. Whereas, if the Sergeant-at-Arms had been the equivalent of an ID creationist, when the opportunity arose to actually perform the job required of those trappings he would have wet his pants and run away.

      Delete
    8. True, but my point was, Vickers' actions were impressive, but he didn't hit the terrorist with his mace. He shot the guy.

      So my point was, for creationists, pipettes and test tubes are not like a gun you defend people with. They're a mace you carry when you parade before the audience.

      If Vickers had been like IDcreationists, he would've let the terrorist kill Parliamentarians, and then posed with his mace in front of a green screen of an action movie.

      Delete
  2. Typical creationist "lab": theatrical test tubes full of red food coloring.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Diogenes, it's a royalty friggin free stock photo:

      Primary-school science teacher demonstrating science experiment

      If they had a lab of their own... oh, they'd take over the world.

      Delete
    2. Did you see the search tags on that photo?


      adorable, african, african american, afro american, blackboard, boys, casual, caucasian, chalkboard, cheerful, chemistry, childhood, children, chinese, class, classmates, classroom, cute, demonstrating, diversity, education, elementary, experiment, female, girls, glassware, group, happy, instruments, kids, lab, learner, learning, lesson, looking, male, man, microscope, multiracial...


      Jeepers. Obsessed with race much?

      A half dozen search terms for the ethnicity of the kids, none for the experiment being performed.

      Because there's no actual kid experiment that involves pipetting food coloring!

      Delete
    3. Conspicuous by their absence:

      intelligent, design

      Delete
    4. I guess they had to use a stock photo because they could not find a single lab doing intelligent design research in the entire world.

      Delete
  3. Casey, did you write this? It sounds like you.



    Biologists hoped that DNA evidence would reveal a grand tree of life where all organisms are clearly related. Yet trees describing the alleged ancestral relationships between organisms based upon one gene or biological characteristic commonly conflict


    Only Casey pushes this stupid argument. Like every phylogenetic tree based *on ONE GENE* must yield an identical tree, or ID supernaturalism wins! IDiot. Casey has been educated by us about fields like experimental phylogenetics where you construct trees based on stuff you observed to evolve. Leaving theoretical and statistical concerns out of it, simple observations show that all trees based on SINGLE genes need not be identical; and when they differ, the cause has never been supernatural, ever, in our uniform past experience.

    Bad Casey. Naughty Casey.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Simplest way to explain where Casey goes wrong here.

      Does Casey think it is possible that he and his cousin inherited an allele from their grandfather that Casey's brother did not inherit? Hopefully, Casey ignorance of genetics is not so total that he will not realize that this is very possible.

      According to the phylogenetic tree derived from this one gene, then, Casey is more closely related to his cousin than to his (Caseys') brother. I wonder how Casey would explain this?

      Delete
    2. How would Casey explain it?

      God did it, persecution fantasy, Hitler was a Darwinist.

      But a marvelous point Lutesuite, we know phylogenies built from single genes need not all make the same tree.

      Delete
  4. @Larry,

    "As you might imagine, the Discovery Institute concentrates on showing that evolution is wrong rather than focusing on whether Intelligent Design Creationism is correct.

    You have a better option Larry. You can prove ID wrong. You can go to a laboratory and preform some tests that say.... "one protein can evolve to another protein IDs claim it can't ."

    Or, you can do the same with irreducibly complex systems that IDs claim couldn't have evolved. Why don't you do it? Can't you? Or... is it possible?

    I guess you are going to hide behind the dumb luck figuring things out for millions of years that you just can't seem to outsmart. Well... what's new in the world of the "real science"....




























    Diogenes comes in....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hey QuesDick, if I list one new protein observed to evolve, you concede ID is wrong, right?

      And if I list three, you what? Eat a photo of Casey Luskin? Nah, but you must concede ID is wrong. From your above criteria.

      From what you wrote, If I list one just one irreducibly complex system observed to evolve, you concede ID is wrong, right?

      You can prove ID wrong. You can go to a laboratory and preform some tests that say.... "one protein can evolve to another protein IDs claim it can't ."

      Or, you can do the same with irreducibly complex systems that IDs claim couldn't have evolved.


      OK. I'll list the new proteins and newly evolved irreducibly complex systems, with scientific references, if you first agree that that would prove ID is wrong.

      Say it. Go.

      Delete
    2. Thanks for being such a sport and playing the role that Larry described:

      "In the right hands, this could lead to a discussion about why creationists seem to resist being educated about evolution even though the correct information is readily available on the internet."

      Delete
    3. "OK. I'll list the new proteins and newly evolved irreducibly complex systems, with scientific references, if you first agree that that would prove ID is wrong."

      You know that you're talking to an uneducable idiot, don't you? You're also letting him think that if he finds an open question in evolution (or science in general) ID is correct.

      Delete
    4. Nah, he's just demonstrating that KevNick is a lying sack of shit who, when his demand for evidence is met, will just shift the goalposts or engage in some other form of discursive mendacity.

      Delete
    5. I haven't been able to do the experiments KevNick suggests because I've been too busy waiting for the intelligent designer to invent some new cellular machine.

      Actually, I'd be happy just to see her fix some of the old ones but she hasn't been very active lately.

      Delete
    6. The recent evolution if the irreducibly complex pentacholorophenol degradation pathway (toxic synthetic chemicals never found in the environment previously) fulfils such a request on both counts (sorry, main article behind paywall)
      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10838562

      Delete
    7. "The pathway for degradation of the xenobiotic pesticide pentachlorophenol in Sphingomonas chlorophenolica probably evolved in the past few decades by the recruitment of enzymes from two other catabolic pathways. The first and third enzymes in the pathway, pentachlorophenol hydroxylase and 2,6-dichlorohydroquinone dioxygenase, may have originated from enzymes in a pathway for degradation of a naturally occurring chlorinated phenol. The second enzyme, a reductive dehalogenase, may have evolved from a maleylacetoacetate isomerase normally involved in degradation of tyrosine. This apparently recently assembled pathway does not function very well: pentachlorophenol hydroxylase is quite slow, and tetrachlorohydroquinone dehalogenase is subject to severe substrate inhibition."

      I'm the dummy on the sideline trying to follow the argument. The excerpt from the article above, the only one that actually addresses the challenge, is littered with "probably" and "may have". I'm asking a sincere question so please don't attack me. Should this language be taken as uncertainty? Perhaps my question is answered in the pay wall but I don't have access.

      Delete
    8. Should this language be taken as uncertainty?

      I would say that it represents caution. The evidence presented in the article very strongly supports the idea that the new pathway -- complete with a regulatory mechanism -- is recent (post-1936) and still at an early stage of development (therefore deficient in several respects). The article identifies the older genes recruited for the new pathway and provides sequence alignments supporting the identification. The alternative possibility -- "that an older pathway for degradation of some unidentified natural product has been recruited wholesale to degrade PCP" -- would only be worth considering is such a product were identified.

      See also Crawford, Jung & Strap 2006 (open access).

      Delete
  5. Diogenes,

    You have made some IP mistakes....lol

    ReplyDelete
  6. This list is awesome, but not in a good way.

    Genetics: I am sure they must have heard at some point of the most obvious problem with their argumentation. There are four 'letters' in DNA; if a mutation from A to C, G or T in some spot harms the organism, then the reverse error from C, G or T to A was previously able to improve the organism. I guess they have but go lalala I can't hear you.

    Biochemistry: Really, that one again? Arches, scaffolding, end of story.

    Paleontology: HAHAHAHA... really? That argument will only work on somebody who is completely ignorant of the actual fossil record.

    Taxonomy: I guess what they wanted to say here was 'phylogenetics', but no matter. Have they never heard of incomplete lineage sorting and coalescent theory? Wait, no need to answer that. Anyway, given the problems that there might be the congruence between different genes is usually amazingly high.

    Chemistry: Yes, it is unsolved, but that only gives you a god of the gaps argument. We don't know exactly how it happened, we only have half a dozen plausible scenarios - so obviously the Andean earth-mother goddess Pachamama must have done it, right? Also, maybe I am mistaken, but isn't it actually trivial to get a lot of organic substances under a reducing atmosphere, as we know existed on a young Earth?

    ReplyDelete
  7. The lab shot is a fake model for many reasons indeed.
    Anyways.
    Its a great tool to entry level teaching on crotical thinking of a conclusion pushed by the establishment etc.
    Its well done by what I read here.
    What kids would memorize the difference between old time evolution and new drift evolution?
    These details miss kids perception og the bigger picture.
    What is the evidence for such a unlikely thing as fish becoming people?!
    How could that happen? It seems to require faith in those advocating it!
    The Discovery folks at least are building a foundation for when the schools will be forced to Integrate and tach both sides. The present segregation is immoral, unintellectual, and illegal by any law in the constitution or bill of rights or tradition.
    The censorship crowds Waterloo is coming.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Discovery folks at least are building a foundation for when the schools will be forced to Integrate and tach both sides. The present segregation is immoral, unintellectual, and illegal by any law in the constitution or bill of rights or tradition.

      I demand that my alternative maths, according to which 2+2=7, should be taught in schools together with orthodox arithmetic to show the kids that thay have a choice. And while we are at it, why do not children learn the beautiful, simple and time-honoured Empedoclean theory of the four elements alongside messy modern chemistry, which pollutes our environment and poisons our food? And to think that there are school graduates who know all that weird stuff about Saturn's moon, black holes and microwave background, but can't construct a horoscope or tell an aspect from an ascendant!

      Delete
    2. I'm hoping for the return of alchemy and phrenology to the science classrooms.

      Delete
    3. The integration of creationism is just including a very prevalent identity in these subjects. Segregation is fine for obscure things no body cares about.
      Not the same analogy.

      Alchemy didn't hurt Newton none. Sharpens the wits.
      Are not evolutionists alchemists in using genes to make everything from a original fish or goo..??

      Delete
    4. Alchemy didn't hurt Newton none. Sharpens the wits.

      By all means, practise alchemy as much as you can.

      Delete
    5. Especially production of chlorine and fluorine.

      Delete
    6. KevNick: "You can prove ID wrong. You can go to a laboratory and preform some tests that say.... "one protein can evolve to another protein IDs claim it can't ."

      Been done. Way back in 1970 Sasumo Ohno proposed the model that gene duplication followed by neofunctionalzation, an adaptive mutation process; that allows one of the gene copies to mutate to develop a new functionality.. This process has been demonstrated for in the "Evolution of an antifreeze protein by neofunctionalization under escape from adaptive conflict" (2010) in antarctic fish.: http://www.pnas.org/content/107/50/21593.full

      They conclude:
      The evolutionary model escape from adaptive conflict (EAC) posits that adaptive conflict between the old and an emerging new function within a single gene could drive the fixation of gene duplication, where each duplicate can freely optimize one of the functions. Although EAC has been suggested as a common process in functional evolution, definitive cases of neofunctionalization under EAC are lacking, and the molecular mechanisms leading to functional innovation are not well-understood. We report here clear experimental evidence for EAC-driven evolution of type III antifreeze protein gene from an old sialic acid synthase (SAS) gene in an Antarctic zoarcid fish. We found that an SAS gene, having both sialic acid synthase and rudimentary ice-binding activities, became duplicated. In one duplicate, the N-terminal SAS domain was deleted and replaced with a nascent signal peptide, removing pleiotropic structural conflict between SAS and ice-binding functions and allowing rapid optimization of the C-terminal domain to become a secreted protein capable of noncolligative freezing-point depression. This study reveals how minor functionalities in an old gene can be transformed into a distinct survival protein and provides insights into how gene duplicates facing presumed identical selection and mutation pressures at birth could take divergent evolutionary paths.

      OK SteveNick you can give up your IDiocy now.

      Delete
    7. Don't miss the foundational hypocricy upon which he holds his belief in ID: We must demonstrate evolution and until we do, he will believe on blind faith in divine magical creation.

      How about this: You demonstrate even the physical possibility of divine magical creation first?

      Delete
  8. At the risk of repeating myself:

    Action-Reaction

    http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2015/06/louisiana_science_education_school_boards_principals_and_teachers_endorse.html

    http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2015/04/creationism_in_louisiana_public_school_science_classes_school_boards_and.html

    ReplyDelete
  9. Re the separation of Faith & ID; I may have already posted this:

    http://philosoraptor.blogspot.ca/2007/11/bad-guy-team-up-id-ssk-so-i-was.html

    Though, of course, Michael Behe and the lot from Dover were basically busted because they were so obviously pushing a religious view for religious reasons. (In one draft of the ID textbook, Pandas and People, researchers found that the ID folk had just gone through an old creationist textbook they'd written and tried to replace 'creationism' and 'creation' with 'intelligent design theory' and 'intelligent design.' The most amusing part of the whole business came when it was discovered that they'd forgotten to delete correctly, and had thus included in one of their manuscripts words like "creaintelligent designtionism." Now there's a transitional form for ya...

    Lewis Black did a great spoof on the book Pandas and People.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3PDZTveY4uQ

    Meanwhile, I am bemused that DI would restrict Biology teachers from ever discussing Gould's NOMA because:

    The question of whether
    evolution is compatible with religion is
    essentially a theological question and public
    schools are forbidden from endorsing any
    particular theological position regarding
    evolution.


    But - and this is the part I still don't get...

    Even though science teachers are barred from mentioning NOMA, teachers are still urged to present DI's version of ID as an "alternative scientific theory" because intelligent agents produce complex and specified information (CSI) subject to experimental tests.

    Karl Popper must be spinning in his tomb! Whatever happened to the criterion of "falsifiability"?
    Talk about having it both ways.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Irony Alert!

    This link is for real and is neither a prank nor a joke... well in a manner of speaking it really is a joke, but we digress.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That actually is no joke. On the contrary, it's quite disturbing that a generally, AFAIK, respectable and reliable book series would include such a topic.

      Delete
    2. Note that it's "written by an expert in the field" (translation: co-written by a theologian and a journalist).

      Delete
    3. Hi Piotr

      re: Note that it's "written by an expert in the field" (translation: co-written by a theologian and a journalist).

      Hit the IRONY COMPOUNDED & SQUARED button

      The authors dismiss Dawkins' arguments entirely on the grounds that Dawkins is a scientist, not theologian, thus he is not qualified to speak (or write) on matters of God. [sic]... but of course, wait for it... wait for it...

      ... the authors deem themselves qualified to elocute on matters scientific:

      eg - "Evolution runs contrary to the 2nd law of thermodynamics" dontchya know!

      I have yet to encounter a better validation of Poe's Law!

      Their title: "The Complete IDiot's Guide to Understanding ... " resonates loud and clear!

      Delete
  11. I'm not here to argue with anyone just to get some simple ways to explain things to some students. I am evaluating the Chimp and Human DNA scenario with a bit of math. Approximately 3 million base pares are not the same. So lets say Lucy 3 million years ago was only 1.5 million off as a starting point. one in a 1,000 DNA mutations are non harmful. The beneficial (chimp to Human) mutation would have to be present in the Sperm of the procreating couple. It would also have to be reproduced and carried to the next generation of Chimps without out being corrupted or corrected when the sperm and egg join ( I understand there is some method of DNA to correct errors in reproduction to RNA). We now have the problem of 2 years for each random positive genetic mutation. What's wrong with my logic because I can't get this to work mathematically but i see others calculating DNA mutation in 3 million years and working fine considering the chimp lives to about 30 has several kids and we also have to add 6 complete Chromosomes. back tot he 42-48 Chromosomes problem.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm having a hard time following exactly what you're sayng and, in any event, there are far more knowledgeable folks here who I suspect will soon putting in their 2 cents worth. However, just off the bat, you seem to be making a couple false assumptions. e.g. "one in a 1,000 DNA mutations are non harmful" (actually, most mutations are neutral) and "The beneficial (chimp to Human) mutation" (mutations that distinguish human from chimp need not be beneficial, and most are probably not.) I'm also not sure why you're bringing Lucy into this.

      Larry has actually performed the calculations you are looking for in an older post:

      http://sandwalk.blogspot.ca/2012/01/whats-difference-between-human-and.html

      Delete
    2. Also:

      we also have to add 6 complete Chromosomes. back tot he 42-48 Chromosomes problem

      Say what?

      Delete
    3. back tot he 42-48 Chromosomes problem.

      What is the problem, and why "42"? All the great apes (Hominidae) have 24 pairs of chromosomes; only in humans the number of pairs has been reduced to 23 via the fusion that produced human chromosome 2. The difference is minimal if you compare the great apes with other primates. For example, we see a lot more variation among the lesser apes (gibbons): the four gibbon genera have 19, 22, 25 and 26 pairs of chromosomes.

      Delete
    4. "42" because it is the answer to Life, The Universe, and Everything.

      I think that Perry is implicity assuming that one substitution has to finish happening before the next new mutant occurs. Not so.

      However, it is very hard to understand what he is saying.

      Delete
    5. "What is the problem?"

      "What do you get if you multiply six by nine?", I guess.

      Delete
    6. Joe Felsenstein writes:

      However, it is very hard to understand what he is saying.

      So it's not just me. That's reassuring.

      Delete
    7. Paul, to reiterate, please follow the link that Lutesuite gave. It should clarify the math, which is quite easy in its simplest form.

      Delete
    8. Paul Perry said, "just to get some simple ways to explain things to some students"

      ---------

      May I ask, are you a biology teacher?

      Delete
  12. How ironic. Larry says:

    "In the right hands, this could lead to a discussion about why creationists seem to resist being educated about evolution even though the correct information is readily available on the internet. The class could learn about confirmation bias, begging the question, false dichotomy, and the strawman fallacy using examples from the handbook."

    I think this is actually a great idea; but if you don't also include a discussion about why Evolution advocates (especially atheists) resist any challenge to their theory then you are guilty of exactly the same crime of bias.

    It would also be good to study the psychology of why intelligent people (eg most people on this site) resort to insulting, swearing and childish taunting of people just because they hold different views or who might commit the terrible crime of asking questions or challenging certain facts. Paul Perry had better not admit to being a teacher because then he will be confronted with an avalanche of abuse because he hasn't studied evolution to beyond PhD level and is therefore stupid and ignorant. He will be ridiculed rather than informed by the very people who could help him (and through him the next generation of scientists if he is a teacher.)

    How much better the world would be if everyone on this site behaved like an objective scientist and respected each other. Some of this site gets extremely close to cyberbullying and you guys should be ashamed of yourselves.

    ReplyDelete